Some excellent and valid points and I respect all the views, but to be honest I wasn’t really trying to initiate a debate on the pros and cons of religion. My question was aimed at the conflicting interpretations of the 'Racial and Religious Hatred’ act and the lack of clarity regarding enforcement. Allow me to elaborate. If for example, an away football fan at a Spurs game chants anti-Semitic slogans aimed at the Home fans an offence will be deemed to have been committed and in all likelihood, that person will be charged in accordance with the said act. In contrast however, we have lawmakers and media commentators coming out today and publicly stating that in the name of free speech it is acceptable for publications to mock and ridicule any/all religions. Surely if a football fan is deemed to be inciting religious hatred in the eyes of the law by chanting anti religious slogans in a public stadium holding a few thousand, then why is it that images and text of a similar nature published with the potential to reach a global readership is not deemed in the same way?
